Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by t_v

  1. Really really really big batteries, enough to make storing energy for a night viable with just 5-10 big batteries edit: storing energy for a mid-tier colony, I mean.
  2. I thought that the wind turbines were common knowledge and were being taken into account in this thread, but in case they were not, this is promising evidence of the inclusion of some sort of wind system! Of course, there could always be the option to abstract it to a constant influx of electricity depending on location but not time, such as how Space Engineers handles it, but this raises the chance that a wind system, even a simplified one, might be in the game!
  3. And there are no rocky planets that magically do not have any dust whatsoever. Not having power washing is like not having ground on planets. The toxic part isn't in the features themselves, but the very harsh expectation for these features to be in the game. It just sets people up for disappointment and a bad experience in what will be a good game.
  4. Delay is a good example of something that can be implemented as part of difficulty, and as far as I’ve seen enough people like it to include it. Although, it might be a really easy mod. It’s up in the air if enough of the player base wants it to matter. And on the topic of inclinations with different starts, do you think there should be “easy tilt” planets in the late game, or should they all be more challenging? I know that physics dictates that a moon like Donk needs to be orbiting at Gurdamma’s equator because it is formed from the rings (?) but aside from those cases, I think that tilt shouldn’t become intentionally more extreme throughout the late game. High tilt planets pose a host of challenges beyond just landing (which might be a trivial increase in difficulty) with power generation, temperatures, and probably topography. I think that if every planet had this sort of tilt, it would make the unique challenges presented less unique. What do you think?
  5. And I am saying that the statement you made is incorrect and promotes toxic thinking about games. Both the original statement and the paraphrased version. To start with the incorrectness, as I have shown above, KSP is already “graphically competitive” without rain and snow, and there are tons of games without weather systems that are complete. If you really want to go down that route, KSP 2 will never ever be complete because there will always be aspects of space exploration that are “missing” from the game. I’ll personally say that the game is terrible and incomplete if it does not include a power washing system to get dust off of suits. Those kind of arguments are silly, you see? And for the toxic thinking, I really thought that you were posting these really good looking screenshots because you were just excited about KSP 2 and you weren’t expecting things to be implemented. Just like the information releases, where the best mentality to take is to anticipate them but not expect them, so that you are not disappointed when they do not come. Setting a high goal for the game is fine; sometimes it helps to just imagine what KSP 2 could be in an impossible perfect world. But making those lofty visions into your expectations is not okay and will result in disappointment down the line. It is toxic; setting impossibly high expectations for a game to even be “complete” didn’t come from the devs or anyone else, and that line of thinking that you have put yourself into is just going to generate frustration. If you want to enjoy KSP 2, keep dreaming about what it could be, but drop the expectations.
  6. What do you mean by that? Lots of space games don't even allow you to interact with planets whatsoever, let alone land on them and experience their atmospheric effect. KSP 2 is already ahead of most space games. Just look at some of the screenshots displayed! KSP 2 has a nice looking lighting system, wayyy better than that of KSP 1 and definitely on-par with other games. Not in any way uncompetitive. Other games sometimes don't even simulate light reflecting off of planets! How about in the atmosphere... Look at those clouds... That looks better than, say, No Man's Sky clouds, and despite the cartoony aesthetic, I'd say NMS is graphics competitive... So, on the technical side, I think KSP 2 is competitive. There we go, comparing KSP 2 to other games, KSP 2 holds its own. And before you point out that Starfield has better clouds than what I've shown here, know that you are comparing one of the most graphically advanced games to one that deals a lot more with physics simulations. KSP 2 fits nicely in the middle of other modern space games, which is honestly more than we could expect from it. I think that you are setting your expectations far too high - and it is harmful both now and when the game releases. If you look around, you will see that there are lots of great games that aren't the absolute best in the world at doing clouds, wind and weather, and that does not make them "not graphically competitive." Thanks @The Aziz for the screenshots
  7. $60 dollars for the base game. I think we have confirmation that there will be no micro transactions, but DLC has been intentionally left on the table, so expect to pay for DLC as part of your costs
  8. I just wanted to add, I apologize if this came across as being negative about your post itself. I truly appreciate your efforts to bring optimism and awe to the KSP community with your visions of great experiences and features. I also respect you for your persistence even after many of your ideas have been strongly opposed. That specific post was likely another look at a great graphics system to draw inspiration from, it is just that it created a dangerous ambiguity. Keep posting the things KSP will probably never be, to give us ideas of areas of the game that we hadn’t even considered.
  9. Well, given that most if not all main ship parts we have seen, from the early game to the late game, are made of metal, I’m pretty sure that most of the mid game parts will be metal. Some may have a nonstandard surface like heat shields have ablator or radiators have a different metal texture, but every core tank and pod we have seen has been metal. I bet that as you get into small probe parts, you begin to see antennae, science experiments, comms and batteries be non-paintable but stuff like the Xenon tanks should still be metal.
  10. Sure, I want graphics to be “this good” but that doesn’t change the chances of them getting in Honestly, I’m pretty sure that someone has built this in KSP 1 (mk. 1 inline cockpit with a short nose cone on the front, some mk.2 fuselages, the slanted intakes, etc) and with recoloring and procedural wings, it should be easy to make that. and as for the atmosphere system, from the top MSFS looks pretty much like KSP 2. So, this screenshot could be reasonably recreated in KSP 2 just from what we have seen. As for your questions of “want,” those invite logical fallacies, so I would avoid those. The closest fallacy I could find is the red herring fallacy, where a tangential point is introduced which can be mistaken for the central argument. In this specific context, asking people whether they want the graphics presented in MSFS would usually get a “yes” response because all else held equal, better graphics and better aesthetics are better. However, whether we want better graphics is not what should determine how good the graphics are, the performance limitations and gameplay consequences should. Because things are not held equal, abstracting the argument to a preference question is next to meaningless. If you want to fully separate the arguments of performance and preference, that would fix this false comparison between the two, and it would help to indicate that you are not making an argument for including good graphics by asking us whether we want them. If you want to continue to advocate for better graphics instead of creating a “yes” box, a better way to frame the clips that you post would be to explain (preferably more specifically) what you would like to see in KSP 2 and ask people what they think would be the pros and cons of that feature, or just leave your request and allow people to reply to it as they want.
  11. I mean... [link snipped by mean moderator] I'm not touching that with a mile long stick Some of those key phrases surprise me. But anyways, I think that the KSP 2 wiki should probably be filled out after release, as things change around during development and we know very few specifics.
  12. I think the paint will have a different reflectivity than the metal, meaning you will make your craft more matte by increasing opacity.
  13. When I was learning how to do interplanetary transfers, not having to do an inclination change burn was very helpful in managing to have enough dV and making things simpler
  14. Wait a moment, I know for a fact that Minecraft has integrated scripting functionality with their custom command block system. This even extends to external downloadable files that run scripts hosted on the bedrock edition marketplace. Are they against scripting as a whole, or only scripting that can interfere with system files? Or are Microsoft games just exceptions?
  15. I’d like to dispute this, because I make use of planes whenever I can, especially when not leaving an atmosphere. On Kerbin you can just recover a vessel from anywhere on the surface, but if you have interplanetary infrastructure, crashed ships or ships low on fuel will need a way to get to a fuel depot and shipyard, and I am definitely not using a rover to circumnavigate Duna. Planes in KSP 2 will be even more important because they will provide a very efficient way to move around a planet with speed and ease. Not to mention, they can be fun to fly.
  16. Honestly, I expected one earlier. However, best to not “feed the trolls”
  17. On the topic of thrust, I think there should definitely be a lead up to supersonic flight, because not every engine can support those speeds, but if you stick a powerful jet engine on something and then throttle up to maximum (which I think is pretty rare irl, you don’t want to be constantly accelerating as much as possible) you should be able to hit Mach even if your plane isn’t sleek, due to sheer thrust. On nicely designed planes with powerful engine, I can hit Mach 1 or even 2 without going at full throttle, which emphasizes aerodynamic plane design. In terms of my personal preference, I’d like it to become a little harder but still possible to slap engines on a brick and launch it at mach speeds. And on the topic of heating, I get red bars showing up consistently when going fast at low altitudes. Especially when designing ssto space planes, there is always a margin where you fly them too low and burn up. Once again, in terms of personal preference, I think that it could be made a little bit harder. Luckily, there are sliders, and if I want more heat, I can turn up reentry heating. I think if in KSP 2 there was a slider to increase the drag force (and therefore heat produced) in atmospheres this could work to satisfy everyone.
  18. Just wondering, for any devs who may be following this conversation, how big is that asteroid? It looks to be significantly higher definition than KSP 1 asteroids, with a normal map and everything.
  19. I'm sure multiple people have asked this before, but how big is the current and planned performance difference with volumetric clouds? As in, if I run EVE Redux currently at a flat 60 FPS and everything else is held constant, what should I expect from the new update? (By the way, I think the new clouds look absolutely amazing)
  20. Wow, I learned a lot about engines just from this! Thanks for making parts that have components reflecting their function. (Now that we know asteroids are a part... is everything a part? Am I just a part?)
  21. When you say better job, do you mean aesthetically or with realism? Because all of the clips you have posted here are utterly and completely unrealistic for the sake of aesthetics. Also, the effects presented there are pretty intense already, and making a higher fidelity version would be very bad for performance.
  22. Once the systems are in place, tweaking parameters such as cloud size, distribution, and color is easy and for this one, I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that the views on other planets have the potential to look even more alien than fallout 76's. Although probably not with names such as "quantum rain."
  23. If you have touched a hot piece of metal, you'll know that conduction is also a valid way for heat to transfer
  • Create New...